I asure you, my friend, that this is not only the case in the USA. The Europe (that's where I'm located) is not much better either. Corporate behaviour ESPECIALLY (but not only) with respect to open source and GPL, is plain disgusting.
I'm all for profit, after all that means my paycheck is secured and will grow, but if it's achieved by almost-criminal means, I don't need it. Otherwise, why don't we all just start selling crack? That's where the really big money is, after all.
It's just plain stupid. I absolutely hate that term.
It's a "fancy" way of saying "I screwed up, so I'll have to re-organize huge portions of the design, in order to somehow find my way out of this mess." in such a way, as to make the manager think you must be some sort of a genius for using such fancy words.
Whenever I hear a colleague software developer saying
"Some re-factoring might be necessary in order to get that functionality"
followed by an (expected)
"Well, then, go ahead, do it"
in a meeting where we must decide whether we will allow a last minute addition of a critical requirement or not, I feel the urge to jump over the table and ram my fucking foot down the idiot's throat. I KNOW he is talking about a complete re-design of an otherwise good working piece of the code, without actually saying it.
I would really like to know who coined that stupid and unnecessary term in the first place!
Actually, no. You won't find ANY supporter of the "information wants to be free" idea arguing that taking somebody's work, striping the copyright, modifying parts of it and selling it as your own product should be somehow acceptable. Quite the opposite is the case: information DOES want to be free, but the COPYRIGHTS have nothing to do with it. Check tha recent law suits of BusyBox authors, or the numerous suits on behalf of the author of the netfilter software for example.
But I suppose you already know that and you were only trolling, correct?
1. Avoid running down hill, if possible; if not possible, run SLOWLY when running down hill.
2. For christ sake, GET GOOD RUNNING SHOES. Not expensive ones, not the ones that look good, not the ones a salesperson in a shopping mall recommends. Go into a specialized store, get yourself informed, then go to another specialized store, and THEN buy them.
I have had problems with knees all my life, just until recently, when I finally bought myself running shoes suiting my needs.
Intellectual abilities of some athletes I happen to know seem to prove you wrong.:-)
On a more serious note, I know that low standing heart rate is nothing bad, if you are an athlet. But as low as 30? For a tennis player, where endurance is an important aspect, but not *the* *most* *important* one? This really sounds low to me.
Now, if you meant "the heart rate right after waking up, before moving", 30 sounds OK again. Mine is somewhere in low 50-ies. But during the day, where a "normal" person lays somewhere around 70, 30 would be kind of extreme, I suppose.
Regardless of how healty you are, there is a minimum heart beat rate you need to get your body supplied with oxygen. To take it to extreme, just to clarify my point, if your heart ever tries to go down to 1 beat per minute, you'll die, regardless if how well trained you might be.
Frankly, I don't know where the critical point is.
You seem to forget a tiny inconvenient fact about predators: they don't get their fat from the local store. They have to RUN, sometimes all day, in order to get something to eat.
Just buying some fat shit in Wall Mart, eating it in front of the TV, then turning in to a late-night slashdot session, for sure WON'T make you look like a Cheetah.
Sure, you should train your body to get its energy from fat. However, the only way to do it is to EXERCISE, with the correct heart frequency and for a prolonged time periods (at least one hour per exercise, at least 3-4 times a week).
I've been running for the past 8 months. I feel WAY better, my waist circumference has decreased significantly, my heart frequency is now around 60-65 (was: 75+), and my blood pressure went 10-15 points down. I don't go out of breath by going 2-3 floors by stairs any more. Actually, I even barely notice it.
I really don't believe I'd have seen the same effect if I just started "eating like a predator" instead. I'm still over 100kg though, but I'm working on it.
Yes, architects do learn some basics about mechanical engineering (actually about statics). This does not, however, by any stretch of imagination, qualify them as civil or structural engineers. The reason they learn about it is to make sure they don't TOTALLY screw it up before sending their plans to the civil engineer.
Take that from my mouth: my wife is an architect, her brother is a civil/structural engineer.:-)
I just talked to my wife about it, and she confirmed, that the civil engineer can overrule the architect only if the building in question is actually a bridge. In case of buildings like this one, the architect can basically tell the civil engineer to shove it and carry on with implementation of his idea. Except if there are some SERIOUS structural problems with the building, making it not safe, in which case the civil engineer does have the means to stop the raging architect from killing innocent bystanders.
HOWEVER, the part where you said "many competent civil and structural engineers all signed off on the plans for that building" is also correct! No building is built without a permission from the city engineering office (or whatever you call it), and those guys can NOT be overruled by an architect. They can be bribed, but not overruled:-). Only filing a suit against the architect does not show a real understanding of the house building process.
DISCLAIMER: what I wrote above holds for the large parts of (western) Europe. In the USA, the things might be different.
If I have the luck to get Lennie The Linux Master, who has the know-how to install pine and to hook it to your exchange server, to work for my company, I'd sure as hell want to make him happy enough to stay with the company and do the good work. Frankly, whom does he get in the way? I'm sure your average lazy IT guy (who only seems to be able to support outlook, according to your own words, which makes him 100x less worth to the company than the Leenie) will never in his life get the support request from Lennie regarding pine.
Let's not forget why the companies have the IT departments: because they are the necessary evil. Not because they are some demi-gods in the need of a bunch of sheeps to guard through the rough waters of multiple e-Mail clients.
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but your post really pissed me off. Let's just try to respect each other for a change, instead of forcing our beliefs down the collective throats of the "other side". BOFH was kind of funny at the time it was written, but it's just plain outdated nowadays.
Now this is, what, the 5th time I read this question in this discussion?
My boss would NEVER, I repeat NEVER fire me for breaking companies IT policy! What kind of screwed up world are we living in here??? We are looking for additional developers CONSTANTLY and are just NOT ABLE TO FIND GOOD PEOPLE! We are a well respected company, currently counting some 700 employees, developing embedded software and hardware in a highly interesting and "sexy" field. Nevertheless, the vast majority of developers, who come to us for job interviews, are just plain WORTHLESS. I know it, because for the last 9 months, I've been involved in the hiring process. And we are not asking for that high a qualification either! You're intelligent? You have *some* experience or at least some kind of a degree? You show initiative? You don't stink? You're in! If you turn out to be too stupid to be a developer, there are always enough project manager/sales assistant/whatever positions in the company to get rid of you anyway (I'm 80% developer/20% project manager, I know what I'm talking about here:-) ).
If anybody would come even NEAR my boss with the idea to fire a good developer for breaking IT policies, he would be running away with his tail between his legs so fast that he wouldn't even know what hit him.
Of course breaking IT policy is not seen as good or acceptable behavior, and it is also being actively discouraged. However, it would NEVER, except in a case of an obviously intended malicious action, lead to a good developer being fired.
BTW, the company I'm talking about is a European one. Maybe that's the difference.
And 16383, which is both much nearer to what OP said and what the article is talking about, is the highest number that can be represented by 13 bits. It's not unusual to reserve the uppermost few bits for additional information, which would (well, kind of:-) ) offer an explanation for this MS bug.
Take 16 bits for number of files to be copied, reserve the uppermost 3 bits for something wierd, count the files copied... come over the 13 bits limit (i.e. try to copy the file #16384) -> counter jumps to 0 (the lower 13 bits) and the lowest of the 3 reserved "wierd" bits jumps to one, causing the bug to appear, while nobody checked for that condition.
For example, this can lead to DIV BY ZERO, if the total number of files to be copied (say, 20000) is being divided by the number of files already copied (which just jumped to 0 in our example).
It's one thing being able to speak a language other than the one one was raised on. It's something completely different to get the MS degree speaking only that other language. I know it first hand.
It's a pleasure talking to you - not many are in a posession of such a fine rhetoric weapons as you are.;-)
I'm afraid, though, that this discussion, however interesting it may be, could go on forever, without any of us coming nearer the other.
Please be asured, that I don't disrespect you or your religion. After all, my wife is - kind of - religious too, and yet we're together for 20 years now (+3 kids). Being religious or not is one's personal decision which - you are correct - does not necessarily have to have any influence on the quality of work exibited by the said person.
My stance, which I don't claim to be "the only correct stance possible", is that for a real scientist, such thing as the origin of the universe definitely *is* within the realm of science. A *scientist*, as I understand the word, is somebody who is firmly attached to the scientific way of thinking, not only during the working hours, but also in the day-to-day life.
This probably does NOT mean that a religious person can not do the work of a scientist. However, "just" doing the scientist's job does not qualify one to really *be* a scientist, in the full meaning of that word.
Have you read "The Dragon in my Garage" from Carl Sagan? In that book, he shows the passion for science and for the scientific way of thinking. One can say about him what one wants, but he definitely proved his devotion towards critical thinking and promoting the knowledge instead of supersition. This is not enough to be a scientist, but in my eyes, it's a necessary prerequisite.
I hope my broken english was good enough to make my point clear.:-)
No. In this context, it's more of a "you can't press your ass together and yet fart" kind of thing. Either you accept a scientific method and LIVE by it, or you don't. There's no point in pretending to be a scientist while actually believing universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster or some similar creature.
As we are speaking of tolerance (or the lack thereof), it's actually the religions of the world which are the incorporated intolerance. You can't cry for religious tolerance if you (respectively the vast majority of people sharing your religious oppinions) don't provide ANY in return. Just as a recent example, you might want to check this pope Benedict's blurb. And no, I don't buy the vicious back-pedalling which started shortly after he gave that speech of his.
> Not a problem if you consider biblical and scientific authority to govern separate non-overlapping domains.
It's not about domains, which are not non-overlapping btw. It's about the stance one takes at life and logic. The viewpoints of religion and science are not compatible. Period.
> The scientific method was designed to work regardless of the individual biases of it's practitioners.
Luckily, yes. However, the scientific method being rather robust changes nothing with regard to the original statement we are discussing here. The ID crowd has managed quite successfully to mud the waters good enough in order to seduce quite a lot "poor souls" by pretending to be science. It's in the responsibility of every true scientist to defend science against such missappropriation - regardless of whether this missappropriation can actually do any *real* harm or not.
The reason for the claim that creationist scientists should be viewed with a suspicion is probably more of a moral one (funny thing you don't see it!)
Creationism, just like any other form of religion, stands for principles and the way of thinking completely opposed to the scientific principles and way of thinking. On the one side, we have dogmas, arguments by authorities one is not allowed to question, and generaly a totalitaristic system with the uber-authority standing on top of it. On the other hand, we have the scientific method, which is just the opposite of that.
In the eyes of the most scientists that I know (and I happen to know quite a few of them), those two worlds are fundamentally incompatible. This doesn't mean that a creationist can't produce a good scientific paper. It means when having to chose between a dogma and the science, a true creationist will turn his back to science just like this (snaps with fingers) and resort to his personal beliefs instead, regardless of what that could mean to the team he is currently working with.
How do those Indian and Pakistani students get their fees paid? India and Pakistan are not actually known as rich countries (especially compared to the USA), yet they seem to somehow manage it. To make it worse, they manage it far away from their homes, in a culture completely different from their own. And as if it were not enough, they have to manage it while speaking a foreign language.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to dish you or your boyfriend. I'm just curious. I was also a foreign student (MS CS), in an european country pretty much different from the country I came from (language, culture, standards of living). Therefore I'm always kind of... suprised, to say the least, when I hear about people, in a position so much better than mine was, having such a hard time finishing their studies.
Then again, I'd guess in all these years professional astronomers have been looking into that 5ms event, betting their funds and maybe even their careers on the outcome of the research, they'd have come across the same ideas as you did, and they'd have double-checked the raw data for at least 10 times already.
If not, somebody should suggest them to read/. more frequently.
If I find some time, I'll try to find what I was talking about (there *was* a case where I was shocked to see Win32 to expect a bleeping window handle, I just have to go digg a bit).
Now, it's been a REAL LONG time since I programmed something under Win32, but I think to remember - please correct me if I am wrong - that one actually needs a *bleep*ing window handle(!!!) to create a new process (or was it a thread?) in Win32.
I'll take the execl/execle/execlp/execve/execvp/exect zoo over that any time!:-)
Slashdot Mirror
I asure you, my friend, that this is not only the case in the USA. The Europe (that's where I'm located) is not much better either. Corporate behaviour ESPECIALLY (but not only) with respect to open source and GPL, is plain disgusting.
I'm all for profit, after all that means my paycheck is secured and will grow, but if it's achieved by almost-criminal means, I don't need it. Otherwise, why don't we all just start selling crack? That's where the really big money is, after all.
Which stupid dumbfuck on crack modded this "Troll"???
PLEASE, PLEASE remove "Troll" and "Flamebait" altogether - the misuse of those ratings by far exceeds the benefit!
It's just plain stupid. I absolutely hate that term.
It's a "fancy" way of saying "I screwed up, so I'll have to re-organize huge portions of the design, in order to somehow find my way out of this mess." in such a way, as to make the manager think you must be some sort of a genius for using such fancy words.
Whenever I hear a colleague software developer saying
"Some re-factoring might be necessary in order to get that functionality"
followed by an (expected)
"Well, then, go ahead, do it"
in a meeting where we must decide whether we will allow a last minute addition of a critical requirement or not, I feel the urge to jump over the table and ram my fucking foot down the idiot's throat. I KNOW he is talking about a complete re-design of an otherwise good working piece of the code, without actually saying it.
I would really like to know who coined that stupid and unnecessary term in the first place!
I know where your .sig comes from, I know where your .sig comes from!!! "They mostly come at night. Mostly".
Gosh, I should get a life...
Actually, no. You won't find ANY supporter of the "information wants to be free" idea arguing that taking somebody's work, striping the copyright, modifying parts of it and selling it as your own product should be somehow acceptable. Quite the opposite is the case: information DOES want to be free, but the COPYRIGHTS have nothing to do with it. Check tha recent law suits of BusyBox authors, or the numerous suits on behalf of the author of the netfilter software for example.
But I suppose you already know that and you were only trolling, correct?
Check this.
It's rather easy:
1. Avoid running down hill, if possible; if not possible, run SLOWLY when running down hill.
2. For christ sake, GET GOOD RUNNING SHOES. Not expensive ones, not the ones that look good, not the ones a salesperson in a shopping mall recommends. Go into a specialized store, get yourself informed, then go to another specialized store, and THEN buy them.
I have had problems with knees all my life, just until recently, when I finally bought myself running shoes suiting my needs.
Intellectual abilities of some athletes I happen to know seem to prove you wrong. :-)
On a more serious note, I know that low standing heart rate is nothing bad, if you are an athlet. But as low as 30? For a tennis player, where endurance is an important aspect, but not *the* *most* *important* one? This really sounds low to me.
Now, if you meant "the heart rate right after waking up, before moving", 30 sounds OK again. Mine is somewhere in low 50-ies. But during the day, where a "normal" person lays somewhere around 70, 30 would be kind of extreme, I suppose.
Regardless of how healty you are, there is a minimum heart beat rate you need to get your body supplied with oxygen. To take it to extreme, just to clarify my point, if your heart ever tries to go down to 1 beat per minute, you'll die, regardless if how well trained you might be.
Frankly, I don't know where the critical point is.
Well, I actually like my brain being adequately supplied with oxygen, thank you! :-)
You seem to forget a tiny inconvenient fact about predators: they don't get their fat from the local store. They have to RUN, sometimes all day, in order to get something to eat. Just buying some fat shit in Wall Mart, eating it in front of the TV, then turning in to a late-night slashdot session, for sure WON'T make you look like a Cheetah. Sure, you should train your body to get its energy from fat. However, the only way to do it is to EXERCISE, with the correct heart frequency and for a prolonged time periods (at least one hour per exercise, at least 3-4 times a week). I've been running for the past 8 months. I feel WAY better, my waist circumference has decreased significantly, my heart frequency is now around 60-65 (was: 75+), and my blood pressure went 10-15 points down. I don't go out of breath by going 2-3 floors by stairs any more. Actually, I even barely notice it. I really don't believe I'd have seen the same effect if I just started "eating like a predator" instead. I'm still over 100kg though, but I'm working on it.
Well, judging on your two posts above, the AC wasn't that wrong...
Yes, architects do learn some basics about mechanical engineering (actually about statics). This does not, however, by any stretch of imagination, qualify them as civil or structural engineers. The reason they learn about it is to make sure they don't TOTALLY screw it up before sending their plans to the civil engineer.
:-)
:-). Only filing a suit against the architect does not show a real understanding of the house building process.
Take that from my mouth: my wife is an architect, her brother is a civil/structural engineer.
I just talked to my wife about it, and she confirmed, that the civil engineer can overrule the architect only if the building in question is actually a bridge. In case of buildings like this one, the architect can basically tell the civil engineer to shove it and carry on with implementation of his idea. Except if there are some SERIOUS structural problems with the building, making it not safe, in which case the civil engineer does have the means to stop the raging architect from killing innocent bystanders.
HOWEVER, the part where you said "many competent civil and structural engineers all signed off on the plans for that building" is also correct! No building is built without a permission from the city engineering office (or whatever you call it), and those guys can NOT be overruled by an architect. They can be bribed, but not overruled
DISCLAIMER: what I wrote above holds for the large parts of (western) Europe. In the USA, the things might be different.
If I have the luck to get Lennie The Linux Master, who has the know-how to install pine and to hook it to your exchange server, to work for my company, I'd sure as hell want to make him happy enough to stay with the company and do the good work. Frankly, whom does he get in the way? I'm sure your average lazy IT guy (who only seems to be able to support outlook, according to your own words, which makes him 100x less worth to the company than the Leenie) will never in his life get the support request from Lennie regarding pine.
Let's not forget why the companies have the IT departments: because they are the necessary evil. Not because they are some demi-gods in the need of a bunch of sheeps to guard through the rough waters of multiple e-Mail clients.
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, but your post really pissed me off. Let's just try to respect each other for a change, instead of forcing our beliefs down the collective throats of the "other side". BOFH was kind of funny at the time it was written, but it's just plain outdated nowadays.
Now this is, what, the 5th time I read this question in this discussion?
:-) ).
My boss would NEVER, I repeat NEVER fire me for breaking companies IT policy! What kind of screwed up world are we living in here??? We are looking for additional developers CONSTANTLY and are just NOT ABLE TO FIND GOOD PEOPLE! We are a well respected company, currently counting some 700 employees, developing embedded software and hardware in a highly interesting and "sexy" field. Nevertheless, the vast majority of developers, who come to us for job interviews, are just plain WORTHLESS. I know it, because for the last 9 months, I've been involved in the hiring process. And we are not asking for that high a qualification either! You're intelligent? You have *some* experience or at least some kind of a degree? You show initiative? You don't stink? You're in! If you turn out to be too stupid to be a developer, there are always enough project manager/sales assistant/whatever positions in the company to get rid of you anyway (I'm 80% developer/20% project manager, I know what I'm talking about here
If anybody would come even NEAR my boss with the idea to fire a good developer for breaking IT policies, he would be running away with his tail between his legs so fast that he wouldn't even know what hit him.
Of course breaking IT policy is not seen as good or acceptable behavior, and it is also being actively discouraged. However, it would NEVER, except in a case of an obviously intended malicious action, lead to a good developer being fired.
BTW, the company I'm talking about is a European one. Maybe that's the difference.
Well... yes, I know.
:-) ) offer an explanation for this MS bug.
And 16383, which is both much nearer to what OP said and what the article is talking about, is the highest number that can be represented by 13 bits. It's not unusual to reserve the uppermost few bits for additional information, which would (well, kind of
Take 16 bits for number of files to be copied, reserve the uppermost 3 bits for something wierd, count the files copied... come over the 13 bits limit (i.e. try to copy the file #16384) -> counter jumps to 0 (the lower 13 bits) and the lowest of the 3 reserved "wierd" bits jumps to one, causing the bug to appear, while nobody checked for that condition.
For example, this can lead to DIV BY ZERO, if the total number of files to be copied (say, 20000) is being divided by the number of files already copied (which just jumped to 0 in our example).
I suppose the OP actually meant 16384... which IS more relevant than the both numbers above! :-)
Please somebody mod this up.
Just becaouse one maybe doesn't agree with the author does NOT make the author a TROLL, for pete's sake!
It's one thing being able to speak a language other than the one one was raised on. It's something completely different to get the MS degree speaking only that other language. I know it first hand.
It's a pleasure talking to you - not many are in a posession of such a fine rhetoric weapons as you are. ;-)
:-)
I'm afraid, though, that this discussion, however interesting it may be, could go on forever, without any of us coming nearer the other.
Please be asured, that I don't disrespect you or your religion. After all, my wife is - kind of - religious too, and yet we're together for 20 years now (+3 kids). Being religious or not is one's personal decision which - you are correct - does not necessarily have to have any influence on the quality of work exibited by the said person.
My stance, which I don't claim to be "the only correct stance possible", is that for a real scientist, such thing as the origin of the universe definitely *is* within the realm of science. A *scientist*, as I understand the word, is somebody who is firmly attached to the scientific way of thinking, not only during the working hours, but also in the day-to-day life.
This probably does NOT mean that a religious person can not do the work of a scientist. However, "just" doing the scientist's job does not qualify one to really *be* a scientist, in the full meaning of that word.
Have you read "The Dragon in my Garage" from Carl Sagan? In that book, he shows the passion for science and for the scientific way of thinking. One can say about him what one wants, but he definitely proved his devotion towards critical thinking and promoting the knowledge instead of supersition. This is not enough to be a scientist, but in my eyes, it's a necessary prerequisite.
I hope my broken english was good enough to make my point clear.
> Is religious intolerance a moral reason?
No. In this context, it's more of a "you can't press your ass together and yet fart" kind of thing. Either you accept a scientific method and LIVE by it, or you don't. There's no point in pretending to be a scientist while actually believing universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster or some similar creature.
As we are speaking of tolerance (or the lack thereof), it's actually the religions of the world which are the incorporated intolerance. You can't cry for religious tolerance if you (respectively the vast majority of people sharing your religious oppinions) don't provide ANY in return. Just as a recent example, you might want to check this pope Benedict's blurb. And no, I don't buy the vicious back-pedalling which started shortly after he gave that speech of his.
> Not a problem if you consider biblical and scientific authority to govern separate non-overlapping domains.
It's not about domains, which are not non-overlapping btw. It's about the stance one takes at life and logic. The viewpoints of religion and science are not compatible. Period.
> The scientific method was designed to work regardless of the individual biases of it's practitioners.
Luckily, yes. However, the scientific method being rather robust changes nothing with regard to the original statement we are discussing here. The ID crowd has managed quite successfully to mud the waters good enough in order to seduce quite a lot "poor souls" by pretending to be science. It's in the responsibility of every true scientist to defend science against such missappropriation - regardless of whether this missappropriation can actually do any *real* harm or not.
The reason for the claim that creationist scientists should be viewed with a suspicion is probably more of a moral one (funny thing you don't see it!)
Creationism, just like any other form of religion, stands for principles and the way of thinking completely opposed to the scientific principles and way of thinking. On the one side, we have dogmas, arguments by authorities one is not allowed to question, and generaly a totalitaristic system with the uber-authority standing on top of it. On the other hand, we have the scientific method, which is just the opposite of that.
In the eyes of the most scientists that I know (and I happen to know quite a few of them), those two worlds are fundamentally incompatible. This doesn't mean that a creationist can't produce a good scientific paper. It means when having to chose between a dogma and the science, a true creationist will turn his back to science just like this (snaps with fingers) and resort to his personal beliefs instead, regardless of what that could mean to the team he is currently working with.
How do those Indian and Pakistani students get their fees paid? India and Pakistan are not actually known as rich countries (especially compared to the USA), yet they seem to somehow manage it. To make it worse, they manage it far away from their homes, in a culture completely different from their own. And as if it were not enough, they have to manage it while speaking a foreign language.
Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to dish you or your boyfriend. I'm just curious. I was also a foreign student (MS CS), in an european country pretty much different from the country I came from (language, culture, standards of living). Therefore I'm always kind of... suprised, to say the least, when I hear about people, in a position so much better than mine was, having such a hard time finishing their studies.
Then again, I'd guess in all these years professional astronomers have been looking into that 5ms event, betting their funds and maybe even their careers on the outcome of the research, they'd have come across the same ideas as you did, and they'd have double-checked the raw data for at least 10 times already.
/. more frequently.
If not, somebody should suggest them to read
I stand corrected, thanks.
If I find some time, I'll try to find what I was talking about (there *was* a case where I was shocked to see Win32 to expect a bleeping window handle, I just have to go digg a bit).
Now, it's been a REAL LONG time since I programmed something under Win32, but I think to remember - please correct me if I am wrong - that one actually needs a *bleep*ing window handle(!!!) to create a new process (or was it a thread?) in Win32.
:-)
I'll take the execl/execle/execlp/execve/execvp/exect zoo over that any time!